Now that we know that Michael Aird has pulled the pin on a career in serving the interests of corporate wealth at the expense of the Tasmanian community at large, for misadventures elsewhere in the arts (heaven help us) and in the Third World …

Aird’s achievements in his own mind are no doubt legion, and we will be hearing about them in full upon his retirement in technicolour eulogies, for want of a better term, but those that are most prominent in my own recent memory have less to do with the public interest, or the shonky values of the now decrepit Tasmanian ALP, than with other matters.

There are two things that are indicative of Aird as a practical political operative which should not be overlooked when the plaudits are given upon his retirement.

Aird should be remembered, above all, for his insistence, several years ago, that people requiring acute medical attention via emergency ambulance attention should pay for the inconvenience of their acute illness, in full, at the time of the emergency.

That alone is testimony to the fallacy of his commitment to the values of social justice.

Secondly, Aird should be remembered for his casual dismissal of the concerns of the people of Tasmania, particularly in the Tamar Valley, about the potential deleterious social-economic-environmental impacts of the Gunns pulp mill on their lives, their welfare and their future.

His response to questions and argument about this matter has been unequivocally in support of the corporate interest as opposed to the interests of the health and wellbeing of people.

He has stated that the people of the Tamar Valley should have realised, by merely living in the region, that they would be subject to industrial pollution, and that the fault is theirs if that occurred, for living there.

Aird will now retire with an annual pension which most Tasmanians would think generous if spread across a decade, but he indicates, quite absurdly, that he is interested in working in the Third World.

The only work Aird would be suitable for in that world would be in an air-conditioned suite of offices, well divorced from the real concerns of people.

Could well be Bartlett’s spin doctors suggested the “third world” line so that it would leave Bartlett and Aird looking quite saintly.

The reality is that the state’s finances aren’t looking good. According to former Tas Treasury cleaner Nigel Jones, Treasury is a complete basket case. ABC Online doesn’t provide a much brighter view of the state’s economy and budget black hole:http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/11/09/3061629.htm

Posted by andrew bennett on 10/11/10 at 08:01 AM

Michael…you already work in the third world and it is from this third world you will get a million dollars to retire. Something is wrong.

Posted by Buck and Joan Emberg on 10/11/10 at 08:33 AM

It is interesting to see the overwhelming negative response Aird has received from here and other sites. However, I think the more problematic issue is his replacement. Lara Giddings has very little, if any, experience in the financial/economic area and yet she will be the next Treasurer. She has, bar some temp admin work about 10 years ago in London, no experience outside the political. She has either been a politician or worked for one.

I hope the first interview with her, once she is Treasurer, will try to tease out her lack of economic/financial knowledge. I can guarantee she would struggle with even the simplest concepts of economic theory, although she will no doubt be a fan of Keynes. Will she have even heard of other economic theories like neoclassical and the Austrian School?

Tasmania’s economy is overly reliant on the public sector and the Commonwealth handouts. We urgently need actions and reforms that will encourage small businesses and the entrepreneur.

Unfortunately, this is very unlikely when you have a Treasurer in charge with no knowledge of economics and no experience of the world outside the political.

Posted by rothbard on 10/11/10 at 09:07 AM

Aird’s departure will lift the Ministry’s performance rating average from bottom-feeder up to low-altitude flyer.
Now we’re really going somewhere!

Posted by BogusFiasco on 10/11/10 at 09:24 AM

Where is the ‘Integrity Commission’???Surely this individual has not EARNED this obscene amount. He has left the state in tatters and we are supposed to be grateful. This is nothing short of criminal, the fatcat gets fatter while we struggle all the harder to just keep our heads above water.

TWIMC, Aird is oblivious to your criticism. Like Giddings, because they are empowered by membership of a tribal family, the ALP. This gives him the right to pontificate on whatever he wants, health, finance, education, roads…whatever. The mediocre financial outcomes are better than expected for a man of his calibre, so be grateful this twit is leaving and a new twit is replacing him.

The twit is dead, long live the twit.

Posted by P Burns on 10/11/10 at 12:48 PM

Peter, your sentence; Aird’s achievements in his own mind are no doubt legion, and we will be hearing about them in full upon his retirement in technicolour eulogies, was brilliant! ‘Technicolour eulogies’, so funny and so appropriate. :-)

How many other people get the same treatment? My sister told me how she went to a restaurant for a meal with her partner. They were interrupted and moved to another table as Alan Bond had showed up and they were sitting at his favourite table. She told this story with awe… ‘We were sitting at Bondy’s favourite table!’. I replied that he is a convicted criminal and I would have refused to move.

I recall that at his trial his defense brought forward expert medical opinion that he was non compis, but pictures later appeared showing him signing off on commercial deals while still in his hospital bed. He is again on Australia’s ‘rich list’.

How many prominent politicians/businesspeople have been diagnosed as ‘soon-to-be-dead’ from cancer etc., or are found to be mentally deficient when they go to trial, then outlive or recover from their illness after the legal proceedings are finished?

That would be an interesting research topic!

In Tasmania, the imminent death/permanent incapacity of prominent people facing charges has not really happened, nor the subsequent miraculous recovery after the legal proceedings have finished; but if the integrity commission actually gets some legal teeth expect it to happen!

Of course, this doesn’t apply to Airdy but I’d be interested to know how soon after qualifying for a large pension he quit. That is another well-known rort; after serving in Parliament for the minimum period to qualify, some pollies quit asap on a nice golden parachute. This may not apply to Michael Aird, but the precedent is there…

Posted by Jon Sumby on 10/11/10 at 12:54 PM

My Mother always told me, if you can’t say a good word about someone then say nothing.

Posted by max on 10/11/10 at 04:49 PM

Why would anyone see Lara’s lack of qualifications in finance, accounting or economics as stopping her from becoming the State’s next Treasurer.

Since when did anyone in politics ever worry about being appropriately qualified for their ministerial or shadow ministerial responsibilities. Having no skills or knowledge in medicine or health didn’t stop Lara being the Health Minster and we all know what a great job she did of that look at her success in building the new Royal Hobart.

Clearly educational qualifications, skills knowledge or experience are no bar to high office and nor should they be; rank amateurism is what we need more of not silly unnecessary qualifications.

Posted by Johno Ph.d and bar and scar on 10/11/10 at 05:00 PM

Sorry, but I can’t help but think there is a degree of ageism and sexism coming through in the negative comments about the prospect of Lara Giddings’ assuming the treasury role.

Lara Giddings might well be a career politician with limited experience outside organised politics, but so too is the person she is likely to replace, Michael Aird, and also the person who served as Treasurer before him, Paul Lennon.

Michael Aird’s been in politics for 30-odd years and is the first to acknowledge his CV was pretty limited before being elected to Parliament. Paul Lennon was a union rep and an office clerk before he entered politics at the age of 31.

You might say that Aird and Lennon would both have had far more extensive parliamentary and executive experience before assuming the important Treasury role than Lara Giddings has had. But actually when you look at the facts, that is just not the case:

Lara has been a Minister now for six years, including two years as Minister for Economic Development and then four as Minister responsible for the Health portfolio that accounts for over 40% of the State Budget. This is easily on a par with the previous executive experience of both Lennon and Aird when they each assumed the treasury portfolio, and is actually far more extensive than the prior executive experience of the bloke that is now widely regarded as the State’s greatest ever Treasurer, David Crean, who assumed the treasury role in 1998 with absolutely no prior experience as a Minister.

I can’t remember anyone saying at the time that Michael Aird was too inexperienced to serve as Treasurer, or Paul Lennon, or David Crean.

And let’s not forget, Lara is an educated woman with a law degree who has been in politics now for a long time and has more than proven herself to be a capable and effective Minster. Her party has also seen fit for install her as its Deputy Leader and the Deputy Premier of this State.

Suggestions that Lara Giddings is not qualified to serve as Tasmania’s next Treasurer are as unfair and baseless as suggesting that our nation’s current Prime Minister is not qualified for that high office.

Posted by Luke Martin on 10/11/10 at 05:06 PM

Comment 3 wonders, and rightly so, about MLA Giddings as our new Treasurer “with no knowledge of economics and no experience of the world outside the political”.

But, given the usual CV for current Labor MPs, why pick on poor li’l La La?

There is no room for engine drivers or merchant seamen in today’s ALP.

Posted by Leonard Colquhoun on 10/11/10 at 05:56 PM

tasmanian residents well being is dependant on canberra continuing sending down the cash on a non-per-capita basis on the basis of needs by the mendicant extremely needy tasmanians who are on the basis of a lib/lab/green scandle soon to vote in a further additional 10 parliamentary law makers whose purpose in life is to further dictate the lifestyle of tasmanians and spend further heaps of money ineptly & incompetently or scandalously in favour of gns,the tamar valley pulp mill, fed hotels, the hobart zinc works, the aluminium smelter, the hawthorn football club and the tasmanian horse racing industry and also to dream up and hit up some tasmanians & tasmanian businesses with further taxes , charges & costs of administrative inefficiencies.

if this transfer of the loot from the wa iron ore mines & qld coal fields stops - LOOK OUT!!!!!!

Posted by mike seabrook on 10/11/10 at 08:45 PM

wonder if mr airds successor will sign an up to date assurance that the tasmanian taxpayer will stand behind forestry tasmania’s and other gbe’s and joint ventures debts.

with mr airds resignation i expect that previous assurances he made are no longer effective after his date of resignation.

can politicians who resign legally commit their political successors for their deals for the next 16 yrs, 30 years or 99 years.

Posted by mike seabrook on 10/11/10 at 09:16 PM

It is always interesting to me when people insist that politicians ought to be highly accomplished in the area for which they have a Ministerial commission, as though that were a simple equation.

For example, the criticism of Minister Giddings in her role as Minister for Health in these comments runs to her capacity to build a new RHH. For which, presumably, she needed to be qualified in some kind of construction or engineering field. But then she has to manage a departmental budget, for which she would need an economics background. Or maybe business management experience. Or accounting. Or human resources. And then there is the medical expertise that it follows one should expect from a health minister. And then there are the Executive responsibilities of a Minister which anyone Minister ought to be acutely aware of, so a background in political science, or law, is required. And not to mention the ethical study they should have done, so add philosophy in there as well.

In truth, Ministers need be intelligent people able to grasp concepts quickly and be able to balance, consider and make decisions based on the best technical advice available from their department and outside experts, the wishes and needs of the community and economy (which are often internally contradictory) and the values they hold and were elected to express.

And, of course, a Minister needs to be able to handle the hatred, name-calling and denigration of hundreds of people who have never actually met them, and criticism from those who lack not just the technical qualifications, but also access to informed advice, in the same areas they demand the Minister ought to be accomplished. I don’t know if there is a suitable qualification for that.

Posted by Pat McConville on 11/11/10 at 02:26 AM

15; Never mind Pat, we pay them well for it.

Posted by Steve on 11/11/10 at 07:15 AM

Never fear,the white knight wants to be reborn as legislative councillor.Thats right,LLewie wants a come back.The labor party is currently sitting at the edge of a precipice,getting Llewie back would help them take a big step forward!!!!

Posted by barry on 11/11/10 at 07:25 AM

Max no9.What would your mother have said about Adolph Hitler and Joseph Stalin,to name but two?
Pat McConville No15.Do you also believe in the Easter Bunny as well as Father Christmas?

Posted by Philip Lowe on 11/11/10 at 07:32 AM

Well I never, since Linz first brought his esteemed and well tempered organ on line we who follow TT and enjoy the odd stir and poke of fun at the ridiculous, the overly priggish not to mention the petty and pompous have just seen a new use for TT - the employment application.

Luke Martin’s posting (11) is if nothing else an obvious expression of his desire to return to the swollen and fetid ranks of the utterly unaccountable - the political staffer. If it isn’t then its the best-ass-kiss I have seen in a long time.

Posted by Bazzabee on 11/11/10 at 12:17 PM

Lara Giddings is the best of the current members of the State Labor government. She deserves our support and best wishes to succeed in her new and most challenging position.

My concern is that the mix of portfolios for which Giddings now has responsibitiy, is not healthy for the transparent and efficient operation of Government.

By comparison, Bartlett’s portfolio mix seems much less complicated.

These matters deserve more scrutiny than personal opinions about Giddings’ qualifications.

Ben Quin

Posted by Ben Quin on 11/11/10 at 12:47 PM

Actually Pat (15), in Tasmania, most people would settle for “mildly incompetent”.

Posted by dev on 11/11/10 at 01:56 PM

Well argued, Philip.

Posted by Pat on 11/11/10 at 05:01 PM

Why hasn’t Scot Bacon been brought into cabinet? I see him on the Lenah Valley bus every morning quietly connecting with his electorate. No hype, spin or fuss. Guess who is getting my first preference at the next election? I thought “judge of character ‘‘would be a prerequisite for a leader? Ignoring Tim Morris (who topped the polls in Lyons) and promoting sadly proves that our premier isn’t up to the job.

Posted by james Williamson on 11/11/10 at 09:09 PM

Re # 20
The second para might indicate a projected fear of a type of work overload. Not healthy; in what respect may I ask, please expand? Perhaps one felt the same fear on her becoming Minister of Health? Poison chalice and all that. Did not appear to deplete a promotable ability. However the New Royal Hobart Hospital on the Docks was well beyond understanding. Especially an apparent belligerent insistence that it would and will go ahead. Demonstrated WRONG, thankfully, it seems. This exercise was at what dollar cost I wonder?

Bartlett’s portfolio is understandably relatively light on, given he needs space to watch his back, do his job and monitor every other developing or threatening thing; and lead.

My main fear is of people in power who do not need to ever handle cash money. It all becomes conceptual. It is (large) figures on a page. Others pay. The endless taxpayer, that is.

Practical work life experience outweighs politically party promoted, (over?) self confident, destined to govern, chosen, of the ruling elite (of any political persuasion). These can demonstrate they have lost connection with the circumstance of ordinary daily life, as most people relate to.

I detect some sympathy and congratulations for and defense of the appointment. We’ll have to make the pudding grow in order to service any grandiose plans. Would thank you to please if you would to continue to scrutinize.

Posted by Question Authority on 11/11/10 at 10:35 PM

Ah, not sure what you’re on about there, Buzaabee. You’re as far off the mark with the intent of my post as I think you could possible be, and while I’ve been called a few things in my life, “pompous” is certainly something new!

My post was not in any way meant to be interpreted as “kiss arse” to Lara Giddings or the Labor Government.

I was merely trying to offer a balanced viewpoint that perhaps we judge female politicians more harshly then men, especially when its come to their experience and capacity to assume higher office. As I tried to articulate, by any fair analysis, Lara Giddings has as much experience as any of Tasmania’s most recent Treasurers when they assumed that portfolio. Similarly her parliamentary and executive experience in on a par with that of our current Prime Minister.

I have seen a couple of other talented, young female politicians in Tasmania who also experienced similar critiques about their relative experience when assuming higher office, that Men of the same age and experience seem to avoid.

Posted by Luke Martin on 11/11/10 at 11:10 PM

I do not see any comments suggesting Lara cannot do the job because she is too young, nor any comments to suggest she cannot do the job because she is a female. My query on her ability to do the job is a lack of economic/financial background experience and skills and the fact that she has spent very little time working outside the political sphere.

I take on board that others including Aird had a similar lack of experience before taking on the Treasurer role but didnt he do a good job! The Treasurer plays a key role in the State’s economic growth and direction. It is imperative that the person in that role has an in-depth knowledge of the Tasmanian economy and economic theory. If we can believe the opposition, Lara gets her economic advice from Alan Kohler (ABC commentator). Personally, I would be looking for a bit more than that for anyone taking on the Treasurer role.

The budget situation in Tasmania is poor and will only get worse because of our over-reliance on Commonwealth handouts and a bloated State public service. The public service wage bill is currently $2.2B. At current growth projections it will grow to $3.5B in 5 years time. The current State budget is around $4.7B. It is interesting to note that the State budget around 10 years ago was only $2B. That is a massive increase in spending.

So it is imperative that we make cuts to the public service. Unfortunately, that appears to be problematic under this government. Last year Government Departments were asked to make cuts of around 5%. Instead, on average, they increased it by 7%.

So at this critical point in time, we now have a Treasurer who has little experience in the economic/financial field and a life-long disconnect with what happens in the real world courtesy of her spending her whole career in the political sphere. Now I hope Lara proves me wrong and makes those hard budgetary decisions and outlines a bit of economic vision for Tasmania. But her chances for success? Well that probably depends on Alan Kohler!

Posted by rothbard on 12/11/10 at 07:04 AM

#25 Luke u need to read my posting more carefully nowhere did I say or suggest that you were pompous the first paragraph was a opening gamibit which enabled me to suggest that u had discovered a new use for TT surely you can differentiate between my use of humour and the ad hominem attacks that all too often dominate TT postings.

In your reply to me you were kind enough to say the following “Lara Giddings has as much experience as any of Tasmania’s most recent Treasurers when they assumed that portfolio”. I agree with you, in fact that’s my point in a nutshell she has no experience and just because her predecessors didn’t have any either is hardly a solid validation of her promotion.

Seriously can you imagine a major company promoting someone with no experience in economics or finance to run their billion dollar + a year business. A Chief Financial Officer without experience and qualifications I don’t think so?

Your comparison between Gillard and Giddings does not stand up. Gillard worked for Slater and Walker as an industrial lawyer, before joining the Victorian labor Government as a senior adviser. Ms Giddings decided even before leaving Utas that she would become a politician.

Like it or not Giddings has no experience outside the political sphere. In a personal communication to me some years ago at the time she was working as a staffer for Jim Bacon she described herself “as a politician without a seat” and talked of serving “her constituents”.

Even when she had the opportunity she did not try and gain experience outside the narrow world she had chosen for herself right or wrong she chose her own path. And it reasonable for one of ‘her constituents’ to pose questions about her competence and her experience it is after all our money she will be responsible for.

Posted by Bazzabee on 12/11/10 at 09:05 AM

Comment 27’s measured response highlights two features of our modern MPs:

~ (i) apart from being a citizen and some other legal stuff, there are no qualifications for getting elected to Parliament;

Changing (i) runs the risk of Parliament becoming the preserve of an elite, as it was in GB in, say, the 18th century, only now the risk is that a 21st C equivalent of Plato’s ‘philosopher-kings’ will form it, and we will even more at the mercy of people with dodgy degrees in po-mo PC-approved ‘Studies’-type non-subjects.

I’d rather have 18th C lords, squires and C of E clergy any day - at least some of them had actual life experience in managing their estates, being generals & admirals, and so on - imagine the guff which would emanate from a clever & credentialled intellectual clown with a BA in Environmental Meta-studies & Genderist & Racist Neo-paradigms in Psycho-ceramics.

As for Ministers being not professionally qualified for running, say, the Health Dept or the Transport Ministry - THEY DO NOT HAVE TO BE: we don’t elect local MPs (esp. in our lower houses) on the off-chance that one day, a doctor MP elected from Tasmania’s West Coast might get to be a federal Health Minister, nor an engine-driver MP from Mackay a Queensland Transport Minister.

No, they are elected as representative of us, to be our representatives down there, or up there, or over there, in one or other Parliament, and to be responsible for over-seeing the public service bureaucrats who run various government departments, where the real expertise is supposed to be.

To do this effectively, they need general real-life experience, experience which is not all that different from what most of us go through, and that is the biggest worry about (ii) above - they just don’t.

MLA Giddings is far too typical of this abysmal lack of real-life and real-job experience. But she has many mates, far too many.

They just don’t represent us any more.

Besides, how many of us feel this continual urge to be constantly seen in hard-hats & fluoro-vests?

Posted by Leonard Colquhoun on 12/11/10 at 01:10 PM

Question Authority (#24)

I was mindful of Giddings’ history as Health Minister when I penned my comment. The hint of irony was intended. I do, however, have sympathy for the appointment. It is a tough job for anyone to do.

I intended the comment to support three more serious points of discussion:

1. Can the Chief Legal Officer of the State and the Chief Financial Officer can be the same person, and still perform impartially on behalf of the Citizens. Given the history of seemingly tainted contracts between the State and several large corporations, the tension between the urge to gather revenue and the need to protect the integrity of our political system seems too great to vest dual responsibility in the same person. A question for the Integrity Commission perhaps.

2. What is the feasible workload that any one person can accommodate and still maintain effective oversight of the workings of their associated bureaucracy. It seems we have already decided that the load is too great. Our response is to expand the State Parliament. Or given the increasing complexity of legislation, should we also be considering the appointment Ministers from outside of the Parliament?

3. Is Bartlett really carrying his share of the burden of responsibility? Or is this evidence of the distraction of minority government?

Ben Quin

Posted by Ben Quin on 12/11/10 at 03:19 PM

#28I’m sorry like Luke before u miss read me - give me a Philosopher King any-day especially before a inbred chinless wonder from a English public school.

If I recall correctly the Philosopher Kings gained their high status after passing through various obligatory stages of education and experience of life. They could not take the title before reaching the age of 50. Allowing for the average life span 3000 years ago they would have to be in their early 70’s theses days to start their reign and not in their early 30’s with limited education and no experience outside politics.

Posted by Bazzabee on 12/11/10 at 03:43 PM

What’s the betting the forestry lobbyists are preparing to up the anti with Lara. She was left with a financial ‘black hole’ by her predecessor, and those that were responsible and received a major portion will want it to get a bit bigger as the time for more bail-outs draws closer.

I have a feeling that she may be related to Little Red Ridinghood. I just hope she has a strong oak door to keep them out.

Nonsense - I do believe that Lara managed her own piggy bank many years ago!

Posted by Observer on 14/11/10 at 08:35 PM

Re#20 Ben Quin
Lara Giddings the best of the current members of State Labor government. Ben, I am surprised at your comment! From my better judgement Lara is a very conceited individual who thrives on her own righteousness and conceit.
This was seen right throughout her campaign to force her bloody mindness onto the public with her relentless drive for a waterfront hospital. Her stupidity has cost the taxpayer dearly, $10M wasted with no follow up with an alternative site or in fact the rebuilding of the old Royal is now looking doubtful too.
If Premier Bartlett is not prepared to give young Scott Bacon and Beccy White a ministry each then the public have wasted their voting power. Lara Giddings is not a particularly proficient minister, she will struggle with Treasury to the point that the public will be fed up with her prattle well before this government’s term is over.

Posted by Robin Halton on 20/11/10 at 11:09 PM

Re Comment 33’s <<Re#20 Ben Quin - “Lara Giddings the best of the current members of State Labor government”.>>

At least Comment 20 refrained from calling MP Giddings just ‘Lara’, in the fake matey-matey style which now permeates so much of political life, and other areas.

Once upon a time, when we were all naifs and not the ever-so-sophisticated & clever people we are now, we used generally to limit familiar diminutives to family members or (rather) close friends, or, at least, good mates. There were exceptions such as ‘Joe’ Lyons, ‘Bob’ Menzies and ‘Ben’ Chifley - perhaps genuinely earned, or perhaps satirically branded, but hardly ever habitual.

Now, political spin has persuaded us, including a compliant media in the Canberra gallery, that Senator Brown is always ‘Bob’ (almost in a “Bob’s your uncle” sense); Victoria had its ‘Steve’ Bracks and has its ‘Ted’ Baillieu, and so on.*

(So far, at least, we have been spared ‘Mike’ or ‘Mikey’ or ‘Mick’ for MPs Aird and Ferguson [Maybe I shouldn’t have written that!!].)

Perhaps it started with the 38th American president, Jimmy Carter: President ‘Jimmy’ - no wonder the guy had no gravitas!! Fortunately, we haven’t descended quite as low as the fakery of Premier ‘Dave/y’.

Politicians are not like us, and increasingly get less and less like us: let’s stop kidding ourselves with ‘Bob’ and ‘Caz’ and ‘Ted’ and ‘Al’.

* Interesting that some sports people never got ‘Bobbed’, such as St Kilda’s games record holder Robert Harvey - whenever some sports journo tried ‘Bob’ on, it merely emphsasised how spurious his ‘Me & Bob’ was.

Posted by Leonard Colquhoun on 21/11/10 at 11:51 AM

Name:

Email:

Location:

URL:

Remember my personal information

Notify me of follow-up comments?

Before you submit your comment, please make sure that it complies with Tasmanian Times Code of Conduct.